CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1

Introduction

The important things of every research work or project are about the results and findings. The result is taken from the test system of 3 different busses. Each bus was tested 3 times to compare the results. The result was including the optimum size of the generator and losses. For all the result that obtained, 10 best data was taken and tabulated in the table. There are also graphs plotted for each result. The buses have been through 3 testing to take 3 difference data. All the data will be observe and compare. Then the best result will be compare with the other buses result. Below are the data tables for all 3 test system for each bus. The original value of losses without generator injected is 4.162234 MW. All the result that obtained in this chapter will be confirmed whether it is correct or not. Bus 6 programmed is used to checked the result confirmation. This is included in appendices A.

4.2

Result

4.2.1

Parameters Table 4.1: No of Bus 1 2 3 4 5 6 The voltage and angle for Load Condition system Voltage (Volt) 1.00 1.00 0.9434 0.9514 0.8632 0.9450 Delta, 0.00 -0.0395 -0.1769 -0.1280 -0.2372 -0.1484

Table 4.2: No of Bus 1 2 3 4 5 6

The voltage and angle for No Load Condition system Voltage (Volt) 1.00 1.00 0.9497 0.9563 0.8780 0.9531 Delta, 0.00 -0.4799 -0.1774 -0.1286 -0.2380 -0.1492

4.2.2

Voltage Stability Index, L L = 4[ VO VL cos (O L) - VL cos (O L) ] / (VL)

Where Vo = V no load ; VL = V load ; O = delta at no load ; L = delta at load Table 4.3: Bus No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Data Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Voltage Stability,L at each bus Voltage Stability Index,L 0.00 0.3067 Size 4.3 0.0264 4.3.1 Result for first to third 0.0204 evaluations at bus 5 0.06 Table 4.4: The optimal size of 0.0337 generator and losses for first evaluation. DG size (MW) 9.5128 9.5099 9.5096 9.5035 9.5029 9.5013 9.5013 9.4915 9.4909 9.4893 Losses (MW) 1.8850 1.8850 1.8850 1.8850 1.8850 1.8850 1.8850 1.8850 1.8850 1.8850

Table 4.4 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of DG and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of DG is 9.4893 MW with losses of 1.8850MW. The iteration for test is equal to one.

Table 4.5: Data Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The optimal size of generator and losses for second evaluation. DG size (MW) 8.2975 8.2974 8.2886 8.2886 8.2886 8.2886 8.2886 8.2873 8.2844 8.2790 Losses (MW) 1.8827 1.8827 1.8827 1.8827 1.8827 1.8828 1.8828 1.8828 1.8828 1.8828

Table 4.5 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of DG and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of DG is 8.2790 MW with losses vary from 1.8827 MW to 1.8828 MW . The iteration for test is equal to one.

Table 4.6: The optimal size of generator and losses for Third evaluation. Data Number 1 DG size (MW) 8.9022 Losses (MW) 1.9018

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8.8986 8.8960 8.8921 8.8916 8.8916 8.8863 8.8845 8.8840 8.8814

1.9018 1.9018 1.9018 1.9018 1.9018 1.9018 1.9018 1.9018 1.9018

Table 4.6 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of DG and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of DG is 8.8814 MW with losses of 1.9018MW . The iteration for test is equal to one.

Figure 4.1

Graph comparisons of power losses between 3 evaluations at bus 5.

Figure 4.1 shows the comparison of power losses at bus 5. The 10 values that obtained are not approximately the same showed that the evaluation depends on the bus.

Figure 4.2

Graph comparison of generator size between 3 evaluations at bus 5.

Figure 4.2 shows the comparison of generator size at bus 5. The 10 values that obtained are not approximately the same showed that the evaluation depends on the bus.

4.3.1.1 New Voltage Stability at Bus 5 with implementation of DG

By taking the very optimal size of DG among the 3 evaluation, the new stability index can be determined to show the changes in stability with addition of DG.

Optimal size of DG at bus 5 : 8.2790 MW The new stability index, Lnew: 0.0545

4.3.2

Result for first to third evaluations at bus 6 Table 4.7: The optimal size of generator and losses for first evaluation. Data Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DG size (MW) 8.9024 8.8987 8.8961 8.8921 8.8916 8.8916 8.8862 8.8844 8.8838 8.8812 Losses (MW) 0.9516 0.9516 0.9516 0.9516 0.9516 0.9516 0.9516 0.9516 0.9516 0.9516

Table 4.7 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of DG and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of DG is 8.8812 MW with losses of 0.9416 MW. The iteration for test is equal to one.

Table 4.8: The optimal size of generator and losses for second evaluation. Data Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DG size (MW) 9.5553 9.5549 9.5546 9.5524 9.5474 9.5461 9.5441 9.5441 9.5397 9.5347 Losses (MW) 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480 0.9480

Table 4.8 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of DG and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of DG is 9.5347 MW with losses of 0.9480MW. The iteration for test is equal to one. Table 4.9 : The optimal size of generator and losses for Third evaluation. Data Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DG size (MW) 8.5872 8.5866 8.5859 8.5827 8.5793 8.5799 8.5799 8.5799 Losses (MW) 0.9533 0.9533 0.9533 0.9533 0.9533 0.9533 0.9533 0.9533

9 10

8.5750 8.5688

0.9533 0.9533

Table 4.9 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of DG and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of DG is 8.5688 MW with losses of 0.9533 MW. The iteration for test is equal to one.

Figure 4.3

Graph comparison of power losses between 3 evaluations at bus 6.

Figure 4.3 shows the comparison of power losses at bus 6. The 10 values that obtained are not approximately the same showed that the evaluation depends on the bus. Figure 4.4 Graph comparison of generator size between 3 evaluations at bus 6.

Figure 4.4 shows the comparison of optimal generator sizes at bus 6. The 10 values that obtained are not approximately the same showed that the evaluation depends on the bus.

4.3.2.1 New Voltage Stability at Bus 6 with implementation of DG

By taking the very optimal size of DG among the 3 evaluation, the new stability index can be determined to show the changes in stability with addition of DG.

By taking the very optimal size of DG : 8.5688 MW The new stability index, L new : 0.0313

4.4

Capacitor Placement at Bus 5 4.4.1 Result for first to third evaluations at bus 5

Table 4.10: The optimal size of capacitance and losses for first evaluation at bus 5. Data Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Capacitance size (MW) 5.1990 5.1994 5.1996 5.2015 5.2038 5.2067 5.2074 5.2076 5.2076 5.2169 Losses (MW) 0.9804 0.9804 0.9804 0.9804 0.9804 0.9804 0.9804 0.9804 0.9804 0.9804

Table 4.10 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of capacitance and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of capacitance is 5.1990 MW with losses of 0.9804 MW. The iteration for test is equal to one.

Table 4.11: The optimal size of capacitance and losses for second evaluation.at bus 5 Data Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Capacitance size (MW) 5.6850 5.6868 5.6872 5.6938 5.6948 5.6948 5.6948 5.6975 5.6998 5.7033 Losses (MW) 0.9805 0.9805 0.9805 0.9805 0.9805 0.9805 0.9805 0.9805 0.9805 0.9805

Table 4.11 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of capacitance and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of capacitance is 5.6850 MW with losses of 0.9805 MW. The iteration for test is equal to one.

Table 4.12: The optimal size of capacitance and losses for third evaluation at bus 5 Data Number 1 2 Capacitor size (MW) 6.5059 6.5064 Losses (MW) 0.9807 0.9807

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6.5106 6.5135 6.5139 6.5179 6.5179 6.5191 6.5268 6.5294

0.9807 0.9807 0.9807 0.9807 0.9807 0.9807 0.9807 0.9807

Table 4.12 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of capacitance and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of capacitance is 6.5059 MW with losses of 0.9807 MW. The iteration for test is equal to one.

Figure 4.5

Graph comparison of power losses between 3 evaluations at bus 5.

Figure 4.5 shows the comparison of power losses at bus 5. The 10 values that obtained are not approximately the same showed that the evaluation depends on the bus.

Figure 4.6

Graph comparison of optimal capcitor sizes between 3 evaluations at bus 5.

Figure 4.6 shows the comparison of optimal capacitance sizes at bus 5. The 10 values that obtained are not approximately the same showed that the evaluation depends on the bus.

4.4.1.1 New Voltage Stability at Bus 5 with implementation of capacitance

By taking the very optimal size of capacitance among the 3 evaluation, the new stability index can be determined to show the changes in stability with addition of DG.

By taking the very optimal size of capacitance : 5.1990 MW The new stability index, L new : 0.0238

4.4.2

Capacitance placement at Bus 6 4.4.2 Result for first to third evaluations at bus 6 Table 4.13: The optimal size of capacitor and losses for first evaluation. Data Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Capacitor size (MW) 6.1070 6.1044 6.1022 6.0984 6.0975 6.0975 6.0961 6.0934 6.0932 6.0914 Losses (MW) 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821

Table 4.13 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of capacitance and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of capacitance is 6.0914 MW with losses of 0.9821 MW. The iteration for test is equal to one.

Table 4.14: The optimal size of capacitor and losses for second evaluation. Data Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Capacitor size (MW) 6.9810 6.9810 6.9824 6.9836 6.9859 6.9859 6.9859 6.9869 6.9909 6.9918 Losses (MW) 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821

Table 4.14 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of capacitance and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of capacitance is 6.9810 MW with losses of 0.9821 MW. The iteration for test is equal to one.

Table 4.15 The optimal size of capacitor and losses for third evaluation. Data Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 Capacitor size (MW) 6.2286 6.2266 6.2222 6.2202 6.2198 6.2185 Losses (MW) 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821

7 8 9 10

6.2185 6.2156 6.2212 6.2071

0.9821 0.9821 0.9821 0.9821

Table 4.15 presents the ten best results of the optimal size of capacitance and the values of minimize losses. The minimum size of capacitance is 6.2071 MW with losses of 0.9821 MW. The iteration for test is equal to one.

Figure 4.7

Graph comparison of power losses between 3 evaluations at bus 6.

Figure 4.7 shows the comparison of power losses at bus 6. The 10 values that obtained are not approximately the same showed that the evaluation depends on the bus.

Figure 4.8

Graph comparison of optimal capacitor sizes 3 evaluations at bus 6.

Figure 4.8 shows the comparison of optimal capacitor sizes at bus 6. The 10 values that obtained are not approximately the same showed that the evaluation depends on the bus.

4.4.2.1 New Voltage Stability at Bus 6 with implementation of capacitor

By taking the very optimal size of capacitance among the 3 evaluation, the new stability index can be determined to show the changes in stability with addition of DG.

By taking the very optimal size of capacitance : 6.0914 MW The new stability index, L new : 0.0335

4.5

Data Comparison Figure 4.9 Graph comparison of power losses at each bus

Figure 4.9 shows the graph comparison for power losses at each bus with the original value of power losses. The results were shows that the losses at bus 6 with a placement of DG have the smallest value. It has the smallest value of losses with a value of 0.9533MW. This graph proved that the power losses have been reduced from the original power losses

Figure 4.10

Graph comparison of stability index of each bus

Figure 4.10 shows the graph comparison for stability index at each bus with the original value of stability index. The results were shows that the stability index at bus 5 with a placement of capacitor provides a large decreasing stability index which indicates more stable system. This graph proved that the stability index have been reduced from the original stability index.

4.6

Discussion

From the plotted graph, it can be seen that with addition of DG and capacitor power losses and new stability index at each bus can be obtained. The addition of DG and placement of capacitor reduce the power loss which indicating this method approved to be one of the effective method in reducing power losses in distribution system.

Both methods recorded a large total decrease in power loss. The greater power loss decrease is at bus 6 with the implementation of DG. It recorded a total of 77.09% decrease followed by compensating capacitor at bus 5 which recorded a total of 76.44% decrease. All the losses look same but there is different if added more accuracy point on it. After all the result earned, graph power losses versus number of data and graph generator sizes versus number of data have been plotted. The results show all the power losses values are not same at each bus. For the generator sizes, it reduce when 3 evaluation runs. The different of the losses are 0.0000 and if the different accuracy added for more maybe there is different .The graphs that have been plotted for power losses versus number of data showed the data are not same because the power losses depend on bus (point accuracy is set to 0.0000). All iterations are 1.

The test example clearly shows the capability of flexible planning methods to increase the system stability and reducing power losses at distribution system. Compensating capacitor shows a great impact when placed at bus 5. It recorded a total of 63.7 % decrease in stability index compared to DG implementation which recorded a total of 16.92% decrease in stability index. Meanwhile , the last data tested on bus 6. DG implementation shows a larger decrease than compensating capacitor. For bus 6, the total decrease in voltage stability index is 7.12% while compensating capacitor recorded a total decrease of 0.29% only.